On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 01:55:29PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22 October 2012 13:25, Thierry Reding > <[email protected]> wrote: > > We could probably do that in the core. I've had some discussions about > > this with Lars-Peter (Cc'ed) who also had doubts about how this is > > currently handled. > > > > What you're proposing is different, however. If we put that code in the > > core it will mean that once the module is unloaded, all PWM devices will > > be disabled. There is currently code in the core that prevents the chip > > from being removed if one or more PWM devices are busy. But as explained > > above, with the current core code this return value isn't useful at all. > > This is what many drivers in pwm framework are doing currently too.. > They disable > pwm and its clock and then do chip remove. > > Sorry, i didn't get the conclusion completely :( > Should we keep code suggested by me in core or spear's driver?
I think for now we can keep it in the SPEAr driver. I'll make sure to refactor it out into the core once I have a good plan on how to solve this issue properly. Thierry
pgpYjTli7AqxC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
